December 02, 2007

And Bring On Bette!

I do my very best to provide continued life to certain colorful, theatrical aspects of faggotry. Since many of you continue to think we're freaks, we're gonna entertain you, or at the very least ourselves, until you stop thinking and acting like bigoted morons. So I called upon Joan Crawford to explain the nuances and motivations of our murderous and genocidal foreign policy -- not once, "Joan Crawford Does Foreign Policy", but twice, "Indescribably Joan!" I am so over the top. There, I said it before you could. We're thoughtful, too. (And such talents for decorating and cooking!)

Now it's Bette Time.

Why might that be? you wonder, as you daringly shoot us furtive, longing glances. No need for concern, it'll be our little secret. A propos this from BooMan, answered in large part here. I want to note this passage from Booman, about an editor at Time magazine:

Understanding Priscilla Painton is important. What the hell is her problem? Is she self-consciously aware that her job is 'precisely to mold, variate, amplify, and disseminate a very particular kind of information' and that that information is false and serves Republican interests?

And right there, as IOZ explains in further detail, is the problem. BooMan, like most good online liberals and progressives, still believes that -- with regard to their most critical, most fundamental beliefs and purposes -- important differences exist between "Republican interests" and "Democratic interests."

It's Sunday, a good day for leisurely reading for those so inclined, and a good day for me not to repeat myself too much. I've been over this ground in detail in the last several months. For your consideration, for those so inclined:

And there are still others (you could, as is said, follow the links), but that will get you started. In addition, you must read the indispensable Chris Floyd -- with regard to this subject, particularly this essay (which I discussed here), and this recent one. That last-linked essay deals with the Democratic leadership's recent enthusiastic alignment with torture General Ricardo Sanchez, and Hillary Clinton's alignment with Colin Powell. Floyd writes:

What is perhaps most remarkable about all of this is that none of it is regarded as remarkable by the molders and mouthers of public opinion in the echo chamber of the political-media world. Should it not be scandalous for an "opposition" candidate – one nominally opposed to a disastrous war – to embrace a man who by all rights should be on trial for his key role in creating that disaster? Should it not be scandalous for an "opposition" party – one nominally opposed to the Administration's "lawlessness" – to embrace a man who by all rights should be on trial for his complicity in torture and atrocity?

But it is not scandalous – because the bipartisan American Establishment does not consider aggressive war, lawlessness and torture to be scandalous, as long as these crimes advance the interests – and flatter the prejudices and self-regard – of the elite. And if you wish to belong to this elite, to reap the rich bounty of such an inclusion, then you must embrace those who commit the crimes that maintain you in your marvelous privilege. You must accept whatever means are necessary to perpetuate the system that undergirds your lofty position.

To be sure, there will be quibbles over tactics, over points of emphasis, over specific policies, and whether or not they best serve the system; this happens under every form of government, even the most totalitarian. But the presence of politics in any given system has nothing to do with its moral content. And as we have seen this week, to play in the big leagues in the American system, you must openly signify your approval of aggressive war, deceit and torture. You must dip your hands in blood. And that is exactly what Hillary Clinton and the Democratic leadership have done -- yet again -- in the last week.

The Bush administration has announced to the world, and to all Americans, that this is what the United States now stands for: a vicious determination to dominate the world, criminal, genocidal wars of aggression, torture, and an increasingly brutal and brutalizing authoritarian state at home. That is what we stand for.

And who says otherwise? The Democrats could -- and the most forceful means of doing so, the only method that is appropriate to this historic moment, the method that is absolutely required if we are to turn away from this catastrophic, murderous course, is impeachment. That is the one method the Democrats will categorically, absolutely not utilize -- because the Democrats are a crucial, inextricable part of the identical authoritarian-corporatist system that has led us to these horrors. They have all worked toward this end over many decades, Democrats and Republicans alike, and now the horrors manifest themselves explicitly, without apology, even with the sickening boastfulness of the mass murderer who is proud of what he has done, and who vehemently believes he is right.

So the dare goes unanswered. These horrors are what the United States now stands for.

No, my friends, I haven't forgotten Bette. BooMan writes:

IOZ thinks we're clueless.

To which, our heroine of the moment -- in many respects, a deeply regrettable heroine in this incarnation, although in this specific moment she is, as is said, right on the money -- responds with deadly accuracy:

Blanche: You wouldn't be able to do these awful things to me if I weren't still in this chair.

Jane: But cha AAH, Blanche, ya AAH in that chair!

Unlike Blanche, the online liberals and progressives aren't paralyzed -- except in one crucial way, perhaps the crucial way: intellectually. Almost without exception, they are immovable by choice. Why don't they get out of the chair? They could, you know, if they chose to.

To further explain what's going on here, I see once again that I must finally begin my long-threatened series on contemporary political tribalism. It shall be done! In several days, though; I need to attend to a few other essays in progress first.